CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodology of the present study, which has been
developed based on the research problems that have been formulated in Chapter I,
i.e. the realization of maxims by main character’s utterances and to find the
perlocutionary effects of the utterances on the interlocutors produced by the main
character in the conversations. Accordingly, this chapter presents the research
design, procedures of data collection, and procedures of data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
The present study employs the qualitative method. In accordance with Cresswell
(2013), this study is qualitative because the data are in the form of words or text
and the result of the analysis will be in the form of description. The data of the
present study are in the form of conversations from Sherlock TV series and the
aim of the study was not focused on finding the total of utterances which are
classified as observance and non-observance but rather to obtain the quality of
utterances. In other words, the analysis would be presented in the form of
description. It is also stated that in qualitative research, the interpretation of data is
the core (Flick, 2009).
3.2 Data Collection
The data are conversations taken from BBC’s TV series entitled Sherlock. Only
one episode is selected from the series, i.e. episode 1 entitled A study in Pink. This
episode was aired on 25th July 2010 on BBC. This episode was selected because it
was easier to be analyzed, since it was the first episode airing for the series when
The conversations were obtained from subscene.com from the uploader ‘SceneinHD’. The particular uploader was chosen by the suitability of the video to the subtitle. The reason for choosing the conversation from the subtitle site instead
of transcribing directly from the video, is due to the time efficiency. However, the
subtitle or the transcript has been through some verification to avoid language
errors and incomplete utterances. Furthermore, the analysis focuses on the
utterances produced by the main character in the movie, which in this case is
Sherlock Holmes. The analysis of the conversation was conducted to examine
how Sherlock Holmes realized the cooperative principles, and the utterances
produced by other characters. It also aims to examine the perlocutionary effects in
Sherlock Holmes’ utterances. Therefore, scenes and conversations which did not
include Sherlock Holmes were not taken into account.
3.3 Data Analysis
3.3.1 The procedure
Specifically, the data were analyzed through several steps. Firstly, Sherlock Holmes’ utterances were classified into observance or non-observance of the maxims. Secondly, they were categorized into Thomas’ (1995) five classifications
of failures to observe maxims such as violating, floating, infringing, opting out or
suspending maxim of quantity, quality, relation, or manner. Thirdly,
perlocutionary effects on interlocutors produced by Sherlock Holmes’ utterances
both observed and unobserved were analyzed. Then, it was followed by
discussing and interpreting the classified data for drawing the conclusion from the
analysis.
3.3.2 Sample of Data Analysis in Sherlock TV Series’ conversations
A. Observing the maxims
Observing the maxims occur when the speakers observe all the maxims (Thomas,
1995). It means the speakers must follow the maxims of quantity by which they
maxim of relation that they have to be relevant, and maxim of manner when the
speakers must be brief with what they are saying.
From the conversations, it was found the excerpts that the character Sherlock
Holmes observed the maxims. For the further examples, the name of the
characters are shortened by their initials (full information of characters’
abbreviation are presented in chapter IV).
Dialogue 3, line 5-7
SH: Mrs. Hudson, the landlady, she’s given me a special deal. Owes me a favor. A few years back, her husband got himself sentenced to death
in Florida. I was able to help out.
JW: Sorry, you stopped her husband being executed?
SH: Oh, no, I ensured it.
In line 5 when SH described his relation with Mrs. Hudson, he made statement ‘I was able to help out’ which made JW wanted to make sure and assumed that SH had spared Mrs. Hudson’s husband. However, SH’s statement was opposite to what he assumed. In this case, even though the response is different with the
expectation, as long as the response has fulfilled the four maxims, it is categorized
as observing the maxims.
From the example above, in line 7, SH gave amount of information and
brief utterance. He also made a relevant statement from what was asked, and
especially he stated the reality and did not tell the untruth. By saying “Oh, no, I ensured it”, SH had stated something relevant and brief with the initial question. He also said something which was true without giving more or less of the
B. Non-observance of maxims
1. Flouting maxim
1.2 Flouting maxim of quantity
Dialogue 1, line 10& 11
MC: I was wondering if you’d like to have coffee SH: Black, two sugars, please. I’ll be upstairs.
At a glance, this type of conversation is easy to find in daily conversation. People
might consider that nothing is wrong with the response. However, if the utterance
is analyzed by four conversational maxims, it was categorized as flouting maxims
of quantity. Basically, MC asked SH whether he would like to have coffee, the
information was expected that the response would be yes or no. But SH gave
more information than is required that he added information by the time MC came
with the coffee he would be in the next floors.
1.3 Flouting maxim of quality
Dialogue 3, line 46
SH: Brilliant! Yes! Four serial suicides and now a note. Oh it’s Christmas
Mrs. Hudson, I’ll be late. Might need some food.
Leech (1983) stated that in maxim of quality, the speaker should make his
contribution which is true. In the example above, SH stated that he just found four
serial suicides and he called it as Christmas. Christmas as common information is
a date on December 25th where Christians annually celebrate the birth of Christ.
In this case, SH blatantly said an untrue statement when he said Christmas by
finding four serial suicides. Grice (1975), as stated in Thomas, found that it is a
1.4 Flouting maxim of relation
Dialogue 6, line 16-20
SH: Her case.
JW: Her case?
SH: Her suitcase, yes, obviously. The murderer took her suitcase, first big
mistake.
JW: Ok, he took her case. So?
SH: It’s not use, there’s not other way. We’ll have to risk it. On my desk there’s a number. I want you to send a text.
In fulfilling maxim of relation, the speaker should be relevant (Thomas, 1995). In
the excerpt above in line 20, SH responded irrelevantly to what JW has asked. Initially, JW asked SH if the villain got the victim’s suitcase so what would happened. However, SH did not immediately answer the question yet he talked to himself and seemed brainstorming by murmuring “It’s no use, there’s no other way. We’ll have to risk it.” Besides he added and ordered JW to text someone. In the end, SH has not answered JW’s question yet about the case. The response above has clearly depicted that SH did not fulfill maxim of relation.
1.5 Flouting maxim of manner
Dialogue 10, line 54-59 JW: He’s your brother? SH: Course he’s my brother. JW: So he’s not...
SH: Not what?
JW: I don’t know... criminal mastermind? SH: Close enough.
Maxim of manner deals with some rules such avoid ambiguousness of expression
response “Close enough”. He made an unclear statement whether he told yes or no. SH blatantly made an ambiguous response and his expression was categorized as
flouting maxim of manner.
2. Violating maxim
Dialogue 5, line 49-52
AN: She’s German. Rache. It’s German for revenge. She could be trying to tell us...
SH: Yes, thank you for your input. IL: So she’s German?
SH: Of course she’s not. She’s from out of town, though. Intended to stay in London for one night before returning to home to Cardiff- so far, so
obvious.
As Thomas (1995) said that people mistakenly considered floating maxim as
violating, in fact the two are clearly different. Grice (1975) stated that violation is
unostentatious or hidden non-observance of the maxim. As in the excerpt above, when AN explained his assumption about the corpse, SH responded “Yes, thank you for your input,” as if he agreed with AN. However, he made a statement
which was violating the maxim because he said something which was true but
actually it was untruth. It was proved then when IL asked SH to convince him, SH
denied it. His thought was different from his earlier statements.
3. Opting out the maxim
Conversation 9, line 88-89
SH: What do you mean...more than a man? An organization... what?
JF: There’s a name that no one says. And I’m not going to say it either.
In the excerpt above JF was unwilling to say the name which SH asked because
JF concealed the identity of the third party. JF also did not have intention to make
a false implicature and the consequence was being uncooperative. Thomas (1995)
stated that kind of this type is categorized as opting out of a maxim.
C. Perlocutionary effects on interlocutors
Conversation 2, line 18-22
Sherlock Holmes : How do you feel about the violin?
John Watson : I'm sorry, what?
Sherlock Holmes : I play the violin when I'm thinking and sometimes I
don't talk for days on end.
Would that bother you?
Potential flat mates should know the worst about each
other.
John Watson : You told him about me?
Mike : Not a word.
From the excerpt above, SH flouted two types of maxims. The first one is in line
18. He suddenly asked JW about something which did not relate to their previous
topic, which means it was a flouting of relation. The outcome is JW did not really
understand what SH asked about. However, in the next line when SH flouted
maxim of quantity by telling JW about his habit playing the violin, he also
mentioned flat mate. It seems that JW has realized what SH implied. In the end,
perlocutionary effect of SH’s utterance was an irritation, since irritating is
included as a type of perlocutionary effects presented by Lycan (2008). JW felt
irritated because previously he did not understand what SH was talking about, but
at the end SH told him that it was about a flat mate. Knowing this, JW felt
surprised that he did not expect SH knew him that he was looking for a flat mate.
